why is it that intel apologists immediately add amd to the conversation when the monopoly behavior is mentioned?
The implication of "monopoly" is clear, especially in regard to what "big bad" Intel had to pay because of AMD whining to the authorities.
The bigger question is why you bring up the whole "monopoly" nonsense when it comes to further innovations in CPU performance.
Maybe there just isn't much left to innovate when it comes to per-core performance. Hence the reason why we've been moving to multiple cores, shrinking form factors, shrinking power envelopes, and yes, even reducing costs and dropping prices.
In short, this is the move toward pervasive computing that has been forecasted over a decade ago. Maybe you need to move beyond this whole "monopoly" nonsense and start looking at the bigger picture. (Alternatively, you can apply for Neelie the Terrible's old job.)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
